CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juillet 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 26931/09 Ecaterina COROI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 May 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     The applicant, Ms Ecaterina Coroi, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Wien, Austria. She is represented before the Court by Ms D. Pagoni, a lawyer practising in Chisinau. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 14 December 2005 the applicant’s husband purchased a house from his mother, M.. The applicant and her husband renovated the house. 4.     On 18 July 2006 they obtained a title of property for the adjacent land from the municipality. The applicant and her husband were registered as co-owners of the house and of the adjacent land. 5.     In 2007 the applicant’s family relations deteriorated and she asked the division of marital property. 6.     In December 2007 M. brought an action against the applicant and her husband seeking the annulment of the 2005 purchase contract and of the 2006 property title, arguing that she had signed the contract by fraud, being led to believe by her son that she was signing a will. In the course of proceedings, the applicant’s husband acknowledged his mother’s claims in full and asked for the examination of the case in his and the applicant’s absence. 7.     On 26 February 2008, in the absence of the applicant, the Botanica District Court upheld M.’s claims in full. 8.     On 29 March 2008 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the limitation period of six months for lodging an action in annulment of contracts concluded fraudulently had expired. In this respect she argued that M. should have known about the content of the contract since 2005, for the following reasons: M. was aged   55 and had full legal capacity; utility bills had stopped being sent in M.’s name and were being sent in the applicant’s husband’s name; and the property title to the land was acquired by the applicant and her husband in July 2006. She also noted that the admission of claims by her husband was not opposable to her, because he was not authorised in any way to represent her interests. 9.     In the appellate proceedings, the applicant’s husband repeated his statement that he admitted the claims in full. On 3 June 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeals dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 26 February 2008. The court did not reply to the applicant’s defence about the expiry of the limitation period. 10.     On 26 August 2008 the applicant appealed against this judgment, reiterating, inter alia, her argument about the expiry of the limitation period. She also noted that the admission of claims by her husband could not be accepted in her detriment, given their opposing legal interests in the subsequent division of marital property. 11.     On 12 November 2008, without holding a public hearing, the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. The court did not reply to the applicant’s defence about the expiry of the limitation period. This judgment was final. B.     Relevant domestic law 12.     The Civil Code reads as follows: “ Article   227. Nullity of the legal act concluded under error (1)     The legal act concluded under a considerable error may be declared null by a court of law. [...] Article   228. Nullity of the legal act concluded by fraud (1)     The legal act the conclusion of which was determined by the fraudulent and pretence conduct of one of the parties may be declared null by a court even if the author of the fraudulent conduct estimated that the legal act is advantageous for the other party. [...] Article   233. Time-limit to bring an action in annulment of a legal act (1)     The entitled person shall ask the nullity of a legal act for the reasons listed under Articles   227, 228 and 230 in a time-limit of 6 months from the date when s/he learned or should have learned about the reason of nullity.” COMPLAINTS 13.     The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that domestic courts failed to deal in their judgments with her submission alleging that the action was time-barred. 14.     The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about being deprived of her possessions after a time-barred action had been examined and admitted. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in view of the courts’ failure to address in their judgments her argument that the action was time-barred ( Ruiz Torija v. Spain , 9 December 1994, § 29, Series   A no. 303-A)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?